Management concepts are both products and instruments of abstractive thinking. This conceptual article discusses the relationship between different forms of abstraction and the practical relevance of management concepts. It focuses on the difference between empirical and theoretical abstraction. The former serves to categorize while the latter serves to explain and construct. We argue that this distinction can partly explain the difficulties managers face when using the management concepts that researchers have introduced. To substantiate our claim, we analyse the creation and use of the concept of a corporation’s core competence. The analysis shows how, in this case, a theoretical abstraction of a novel strategic principle turned into an empirical abstraction, which in practice has triggered unproductive attempts to categorize existing competencies rather than create new ones.
DavydovVV (1990) Types of Generalization in Instruction: Logical and Psychological Problems in the Structuring of School Curricula. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
5.
De LeoF (1994) Understanding the roots of your competitive advantage. From product/market competition to competition as a multiple-layer game. In: HamelGHeeneA (eds) Competence-Based Competition. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 35–55.
6.
DeweyJ (1986 [1933]) How we think. In: BoydstonJA (ed.) John Dewey. The later works 1925–1953, 8, Revised edn. Carbondale, IL; Edwardsville, IL: Southern Illinois University Press, 105–352.
7.
EdenCAckermanF (2000) Mapping distinctive competencies: A systemic approach. Journal of the Operational Research Society51(1): 12–20.
8.
GhoshalS (2005) Bad management theories are destroying good management practices. Academy of Management Learning & Education4(1): 75–91.
9.
HafeesKZhangYMalakN (2002) Core competence for sustainable competitive advantage: A structured methodology for identifying core competence. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management49(1): 28–35.
10.
HodgkinsonGPHerriotPAndersonN (2001) Re-aligning the stakeholders in management research: Lessons from industrial, work and organizational psychology. British Journal of Management12(S1): 41–48.
IlyenkovEV (2007) Our schools should teach how to think. Journal of Russian and East European Psychology45(4): 9–49.
13.
JavidanM (1998) Core competence: What does it mean in practice?Long Range Planning31(1): 60–71.
14.
LeontyevAN (1990) Notes on consciousness. Part II. Appendix in:Multidisciplinary Newsletter for Activity Theory1990(5/6): I–VIII.
15.
LewinK (1952) Field Theory in Social Science: Selected Theoretical Papers by Kurt Lewin. London: Tavistock Publications.
16.
LjungquistU (2008) Specification of core competence and associated components. A proposed model and a case illustration. European Business Review20(1): 73–90.
17.
LjungquistU (2013) Adding dynamics to core competence concept applications. European Business Review25(5): 453–465.
18.
LuriaAR (1976) Cognitive Development, Its Cultural and Social Foundations. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
19.
MintzbergHRaisinghaniDTheoretA (1976) The structure of ‘unstructured’ decision process. Administrative Science Quarterly21(2): 246–275.
20.
MohrmanSAGibsonCBMohrmanAM (2001) Doing research that is useful for practice: A model and empirical exploration. Academy of Management Journal44(2): 357–375.
21.
NicolaiATDautwizJM (2010) Fuzziness in action: What consequences has the linguistic ambiguity of the core competence concept for organizational usage?British Journal of Management21(4): 874–888.
22.
NicolaiATSeidlD (2010) That’s relevant! Different dorms of practical relevance in management science. Organization Studies31(9–10): 1257–1285.
23.
PeterafMA (1993) The cornerstones of competitive advantage: A resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal14(3): 179–191.
24.
PrahaladCKHamelG (1990) The core competence of the corporation. Harvard Business Review68(3): 79–91.
25.
PriemRLButlerJE (2001) Is the resource-based ‘view’ a useful perspective for strategic management research?Academy of Management Review26(1): 22–40.
RynesSGilukTBrownK (2007) The very separate world of academic and practitioner periodicals in human resource management: Implications for evidence-based management. Academy of Management Journal50(5): 987–1008.
28.
SpinozaB (2004 [1677]). On the Improvement of Understanding. Translated by ElwesRHMA Digireads.Com publication.
29.
StarkeyKMadanP (2001) Bridging the relevance gap: Aligning stakeholders in the future of management research. British Journal of Management12(Suppl. 1): 3–26.
30.
SyedJMingersJMurrayPA (2009) Beyond rigour and relevance: A critical realist approach to business education. Management Learning41(1): 71–85.
31.
Van de VenAH (2007) Engaged Scholarship: A Guide for Organizational and Social Research. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
32.
WernerfeltB (1984) A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal5(2): 171–180.
33.
WhiteheadAN (1997 [1925]) Science and the Modern World. New York: Macmillan.
34.
ZubacAHubbardGJohnsonLW (2010) The RBV and value creation: A managerial perspective. European Business Review22(5): 515–538.
